The Never Ending Saga of the Epstein Sex Scandal

[CaptRenault]

The biggest sex scandal (so far) of the 21st Century is the one involving the mysterious financier Jeffrey Epstein, his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and the many purported victims of the two, especially his number 1 accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

Epstein was convicted on state charges of paying one or more underage girls for sex in 2008 and spent 13 months in custody. After his release Epstein apparently continued his main interests in life: networking with many famous people, making lots of money in somewhat mysterious ways and receiving paid massages (and occasionally more) from young, attractive women, some of whom may have been under the age of consent and some of whom were clearly consenting adults. Since Epstein committed suicide in jail after he was charged with various sex offenses, he was never tried and convicted in court. Thus it's hard to know exactly what bad things he did in the years after his first conviction.

However his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, was charged, tried and convicted of "sex trafficking" because, according to the Feds, she helped Epstein recruit women for his sexual escapades.

With the conviction and sentencing of Maxwell in 2021-22, I thought the case was over and done, but really the fun was just beginning. There were a few reasons that the case refused to die, especially because: vulturous lawyers like David Boies saw a chance to make millions in civil court from Epstein's estate and any individual or institution (such as banks or the British monarchy) that was somehow linked to Epstein; the media and the public loved to write and read about all kinds of conspiracy theories involving Epstein and his wide network of friends and acquaintances; and politicians used the case and the voluminous court documents ("files") generated in cases involving Epstein, Maxwell and their accusers as a political football. Both Democrats and Republicans have endlessly accused each other of failing to properly release "everything" related to the case. Many files have been released but no one is satisfied.

Epstein and Maxwell's main accuser is Virginia Giuffre who got spectacularly rich from the proceeds of various monetary awards she received from various sources sued by her lawyers. Giuffre committed suicide in April 2025, but she is now lying (oops, I meant speaking) to the world from her grave with this week's publication of her memoir. So, in brief, that's why the Epstein/Maxwell case is back in the news.

I have always been somewhat skeptical of some of the most outrageous charges against Epstein and Maxwell. I certainly agree that Epstein was guilty as charged in his first case. I think he probably did some illegal things after his release but without another trial and very little public, credible evidence, it's hard to know just how bad an actor he was. Maxwell was convicted but I thought her trial was tainted by the desire of the public to see someone get convicted for Epstein's alleged crimes after his suicide.

The media and the public have always been extremely anti Epstein and Maxwell and extremely sympathetic to Epstein's alleged victims. It is hard to find any reporter or writer who will express even a little skepticism about any of the details of the Epstein/Maxwell saga. However, with the release of the Giuffre book, I came across an independent journalist named Michael Tracey who has written about Epstein/Maxwell and their accusers. He has published some articles on his Substack and elsewhere. I found them enlightening since Tracey has followed the cases closely and done some careful research that calls into question the credibility of some of the chief accusers of Epstein and Maxwell.

We Need To Talk About Virginia

“Virginia Roberts Giuffre is an American hero,” proclaimed Bradley Edwards, the pioneering Florida plaintiff’s attorney, who has made a career out of representing every “victim” of Jeffrey Epstein he can possibly manifest, by suing every individual or entity he can possibly identify.

www.mtracey.net

...Given that Virginia Roberts Giuffre admitted, in 2022, that she had spent nearly a decade falsely accusing a prominent individual of graphic sex crimes, why should she now be seen by the public as remotely credible? And moreover, why should Edwards be seen as remotely credible, in his capacity as a political and legal advocate making demands on behalf of purported “Survivors”? I didn’t actually ask that second question, although I would have liked to. The first question was enough to get me booted by Capitol Police, after Marjorie Taylor Greene and a mob of “Survivors” riled themselves into a vindictive frenzy. But really: Edwards was representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre (henceforth referred to as the notorious “VRG”) at the time she made these sensational claims against Alan Dershowitz, and representing her when she recanted them. So what credibility do either of them have?

I almost want to bracket the whole Dershowitz ordeal, because I’m well aware that people are chronically incapable of separating out whatever feelings they might have about Dershowitz on wholly unrelated issues. So please, let it be known that the chronic fabrications and serial unreliability of Virginia Roberts Giuffre can be more than amply established even if one were to simply forget the whole Dershowitz thing ever happened. Even though it would be an absurd thing to arbitrarily forget: VRG described in the most lurid detail, under multiple depositions, the nature of the sex acts to which Dershowitz had allegedly subjected her. This included elucidating his ejaculation habits, his preferred methods of receiving pleasure, the physical characteristics of his naked body, his expressions of arousal, and so forth. Then, eventually, she had to admit she made the whole thing up. Or to put it technically, she “may have made a mistake” in identifying him as the culprit of these crimes, which is how the statement her lawyers ultimately drafted for her was worded. So yes, it would be extremely strange to just forget about all this, especially if we’re supposed to be evaluating the credibility of someone whose scandalous accusations continue to stoke political upheaval in multiple countries, including at this very moment, even after (what we’re told) was her untimely death in April 2025. And with the release this week of her new “memoir,” yet another PR campaign has been orchestrated to canonize the tales of VRG.

These Professional Epstein "Survivors" Claim They Were "Groomed" as Adults!

“You were 21 years old when you first encountered Epstein.

www.mtracey.net

“You were 21 years old when you first encountered Epstein. Is that right?”

She nodded.

I was talking to Lisa Phillips, one of the hard-charging “survivors” who defiantly seized the spotlight at last week’s highly eventful Epstein Press Conference outside the Capitol in Washington, DC.

“So are you asserting that you were ‘groomed’ by Epstein as an adult?” I asked.

“I was an adult. You could say that, yeah.”

“Well, 21 is an adult, right? So you were groomed as an adult?”

“Yes,” she said. “Many people are groomed as adults.”

“Doesn’t the notion of grooming typically refer to children who are groomed by predatory adults?” I asked.

“You can be groomed at any age,” she said.

“At any age?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” she said. “People are groomed all the time.”

“OK,” I said.

Has anyone actually bothered to look into the "victims" who were paraded around at the Epstein Press Conference?

After I was forcibly ejected yesterday from the Epstein “Survivors” Press Conference in front of the US Capitol, I meandered along the perimeter, waiting to see if I’d be able to get back in.

www.mtracey.net

Among the purported “victims” present yesterday was Annie Farmer — one of the four government-identified “victims” (out of what we’re told is “over a thousand”) who was called to testify at the 2021 criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Over the course of that trial, Judge Alison Nathan, who was otherwise preposterously pro-prosecution, found herself compelled to instruct jurors that they were not to regard anything Annie Farmer claimed happened to her as “illegal sexual activity.” Recall, when she spoke to the FBI in 2006 and 2020, Annie Farmer never alleged anything that occurred to her during her purported encounters with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell was “sexualized.” Her tune changed when the Epstein Victims Compensation Program got established, and millions of dollars became available. That’s when she told the settlement fund’s mediator that she considered alleged acts such as “hand-holding” to be “sexual abuse.”

Annie Farmer — now a “licensed psychologist” specializing in “trauma” — also appears to have appointed herself as an all-purpose spokeswoman for the growing social network of alleged Epstein “victims.” And she’s been making lots of media appearances lately, under the professional moniker of “Survivor.” Which is a bit odd. You’d think “Dr. Farmer” would maybe want to be identified by her self-publicized professional title, “licensed psychologist.” But it seems “Epstein Survivor” is more lucrative. “I am not currently accepting new clients,” her website says.

Annie’s lunatic older sister, Maria Farmer, was not present in DC yesterday from what I could tell, but Annie made sure to carry on her sister’s crackpot legacy. “Why was my sister’s 1996 FBI report — why was nothing done at that time?” Annie asked yesterday. “I think for those of us, seeing so many people that have been harmed since that time, I can’t tell you how heartbreaking that is. To think, this didn’t have to happen.” Let’s remember, Maria Farmer claims she called the NYPD, then the FBI, in 1996 to report some kind of pedophilic conspiracy going on in Ohio which she claimed involved Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and the “Jewish mafia.” She claims to have been given multiple cancers by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and possibly also Trump and/or Clinton. She claims to have had some sort of divine epiphany that allowed her to realize Epstein and Maxwell were “pedophiles” — after voluntarily climbing into bed with them, at age 26. At which point she claims she was “raped” of her “sanity.” To redress these profound wrongs, Maria Farmer has now filed a brand new lawsuit, circa May 2025, demanding $600 million from US taxpayers to compensate her for the “complex PTSD, debilitating fatigue, chronic illness,” and myriad other conditions she claims to have endured for the past 30 years. I wonder if Annie Farmer gave Maria the PTSD diagnosis?

 

[CaptRenault]

A couple events that happened earlier this year underline Virginia Giuffre's tendency to lie. She stated on Instagram that she had been involved in a serious car crash and, because of her injuries, had only 4 days to live. As Michael Tracey demonstrates in the articles that I cited above, Australian law enforcement authorities have clearly stated that it was a minor fender bender and that no one was injured. The photo that Giuffre posted of her supposed facial injuries was probably just faked with makeup.

It wasn't clear to me why Giuffre made up the story about the crash but further investigation reveals that Giuffre was due to appear in court involving a restraining order against her by her husband. Giuffre had lost custody of her children due to her marital conflict with her husband, which is strong evidence that she's a nut job, since courts always favor mothers over fathers in custody disputes. So Giuffre's fake car crash story was probably an attempt to garner sympathy from the public and the court in hopes of beating her husband in court. Giuffre committed suicide weeks after the car crash and so the custody case became irrelevant.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/virginia-giuffre-told-to-enter-plea-over-alleged-breach-of-family-violence-restraining-order-as-lawyer-confirms-she-has-left-hospital-after-bus-crash/news-story/7ceff078a43460040cbbec1d10ded16b

Virginia Giuffre Allegedly Broke Family Violence Restraining Order Weeks Before Claiming She Has Days to Live

Virginia Giuffre was accused of breaching a family violence restraining order almost two months before she claimed she only has four days to live after being involved in a car crash

people.com

 

[CaptRenault]

Here's a story in a local Australian paper about the supposed bus "crash" involving Giuffre. I find it hard to believe most of Giuffre's stories. Her lack of credibility is the main reason that her lawyers did not want her to testify at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial even though she was the girl at the center of all the accusations against Maxwell and Epstein.

Parents of kids in bus crash with Virginia Giuffre throw more doubt on her story

Ms Giuffre said the crash had caused renal failure and left her with just four days to live in a post accompanied by a bruised selfie on Sunday.

metro.co.uk

 

[CaptRenault]

Here's is journalist Michael Tracey's review of Virginia Giuffre's recently published memoir. As Tracey notes, Giuffre had written another memoir a number of years ago. In that unpublished book, she made so many unsubstantiated claims and charges that she was finally forced to admit that it was a "fictionalized" account of her life. Nevertheless, the ghost writer of her new book included some of Giuffre's tall tales in the new book.

Should we believe Virginia Giuffre?

unherd.com

In the new, posthumously released memoir Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, by Virginia Roberts Giuffre with ghostwriter Amy Wallace, the author makes a jarring admission: an earlier draft of the book — written in 2011 and pitched to publishers under the title The Billionaire’s Playboy Club — offered a “fictionalized narrative” of the roughly two years Giuffre purports to have spent being trafficked and abused by Jeffrey Epstein.

Nobody’s Girl is generating global headlines and is, at the time of this writing, the No. 4-ranked book across Amazon. The allegations in the book are being taken as fact, with profound consequences — particularly in Britain, owing to the claims involving Prince Andrew. This week, The New Statesman, Britain’s leading centre-left weekly, published a cover essay calling for the abolition of the monarchy in part over the allegations against the prince set forth in the book. Yet, oddly, the full-volume media coverage blaring across multiple countries has failed to examine the existence of the earlier memoir, or its relation to the new one.

Giuffre, who died in April, was by far Epstein’s most consequential accuser. While others had already accused him of illicit sexual activity, it was she who first introduced the notion that Epstein orchestrated a sprawling child-sex-trafficking operation. And the civil litigation she initiated would ultimately produce an extensive documentary record that prosecutors seized upon in their case against Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Her chronology shifted over time, but Giuffre generally claimed she was lured into Epstein’s employ in her teens — in about the year 2000, when she was 17 — with a promise of work as a massage therapist. She claimed she was subsequently forced into the sex trade. After finally escaping Epstein’s clutches, she’d go on to become an activist-crusader in the cause of empowering sex-trafficking victims.

To question Giuffre’s testimony is not to exonerate Jeffrey Epstein. But it is the responsibility of journalists to look forensically at the evidence, even if the findings may be unpopular.

“It is the responsibility of journalists to look forensically at the evidence, even if the findings may be unpopular.”
Giuffre’s latest memoir is presented to the public as a work of non-fiction. She likewise originally presented the 2011 memoir as non-fictional — as confirmed by literary agents who were originally pitched the book. It was to be an exposé on the sordid crimes of some of the world’s most prominent politicians, academics, and business people, pitched as “a human interest story that could appeal to the Oprah/female set as well as the Wall Streeters who follow Epstein”. However, when the draft manuscript was eventually excavated over the course of litigation Giuffre had initiated against Maxwell, a multitude of claims it contained became untenable to defend.

Her lawyers were thus compelled to concede that the manuscript had represented a “fictionalized account” of her purported experiences. In court documents, the lawyers granted that “Ms. Giuffre began to draft a fictionalized account of what happened to her. It was against this backdrop of her trauma being unearthed, her steps to seek psychological counseling for it, that she drafted this manuscript. Doing so was an act of empowerment and a way of reframing and taking control over the narrative of her past abuse that haunts her.”

In the new memoir, Wallace makes brief mention of the earlier fictionalised draft, but explains that Giuffre chose to fictionalise in order to protect herself from retaliation by the powerful men she was accusing of sex crimes. Wallace has, however, copy-and-pasted entire passages from the earlier draft, with a few minor cosmetic adjustments.

For instance, in the 2011 memoir, Giuffre told of being dispatched to Epstein’s compound on the US Virgin Islands to accompany “a quirky little man with white hair”, whom she identified as a Harvard professor named Stephen, for an implied sexual liaison. In the 2025 memoir, this person becomes “a quirky little man with a balding pate of white hair”, and is a generic “psychology professor”. In the original memoir, Giuffre recounted that the man “asked if he could receive one of the delightful massages he has been hearing about from Jeffrey”. In the new memoir, this loose paraphrase morphs into a direct quote, with the unnamed professor purportedly asking Giuffre if he could have “one of your famous massages that Jeffrey has told me so much about”.
https://unherd.com/2025/10/epsteins-inner-ring-of-evil/?ref=refinnar
Giuffre has intercourse with the man in both memoirs. In the first rendering, though, she offers the man a second sexual opportunity, which he politely declines: “That night after dinner and my mixed cocktail of Xanax and red wine,” Giuffre wrote in 2011, “I asked if he’d like another massage before I went to bed. He just wanted to stay up watching movies in Jeffrey’s theatre room. As peculiar as that request was to me I didn’t argue [with] it, I just hoped I hadn’t disappointed him. I showed him how to use the remote and turn off the TV when he was finished before going to bed.”

In the new version, however, Giuffre’s description of herself as the initiator is removed — but much of the rest is simply reproduced from the old version: “We only had sex once, though,” writes Giuffre/Wallace. “The next night, the man told me he wanted to watch movies instead. I showed him how to use the remote control on Epstein’s largest TV and how to turn it off when he was done, and I went to bed. I was glad for the night off, but I remember feeling worried that I’d somehow disappointed the professor in a way that he’d share with Epstein.”

Nor is any mention made in the 2025 memoir of the fact that when Giuffre was later questioned about this encounter in a formal legal deposition, she explicitly retracted the whole story. Asked by a deposing lawyer, “Did you ever have sex with [this person]?,” Giuffre replied: “No.”

Revelations in the book relating to Prince Andrew have filled the British press in particular with wall-to-wall outcries of vitriolic censure; one esteemed royal biographer was even moved to proclaim that Andrew’s alleged trail of depravities, and likely criminal exposure, has saddled the monarchy with its most damaging crisis since the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. Evidently, few see any issue with making such grand proclamations on the basis of this vaguely “fictionalized” material.

“He was adorning my young body, particularly my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches,” Giuffre wrote in Memoir One, of the time she says she was trafficked to Andrew in London. “That was definitely a first for me and I couldn’t help but laugh, I hoped he didn’t expect the same treatment back.” She now writes in Memoir Two: “He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches. That was a first for me, and it tickled. I was nervous he would want me to do the same to him.”

When ordinary people read such an account in a memoir, they assume that it took place. And it’s considered ethically defensible to reflexively ascribe truth to sexual assault claims (“believe the victim”). But while Andrew has approximately zero defenders on any continent, no hard evidence has been presented to substantiate that he ever had sexual contact with Giuffre. The main piece of evidence is a photo of disputed provenance, from March 2001, which shows him with his arm around the waist of a smiling Giuffre. Yet because the royal family chose to settle with Giuffre instead of fight her claims in court, and despite the fact that the settlement included no admission of culpability, Andrew is widely believed to be guilty of sex crimes.

Furthermore, the Daily Mail, which first reported an encounter between Giuffre and Prince Andrew, paid Giuffre $160,000 for the story in 2011, plus serialisation revenue. The journalist who produced that story also wrote for The Daily Telegraph in Australia that Giuffre “said there was never any sexual relationship between the Prince and herself”.

Representatives for Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Giuffre’s publisher, provided me with a statement, claiming that “the book was fact-checked and legally vetted”. A spokesperson told me that, “the book is a memoir, and it is nonfiction”.

Another curiosity: anyone who has spent any length of time following the endless Epstein saga will be surprised that the name Alan Dershowitz makes only the most fleeting appearance in the book. For nearly a decade, Giuffre made sensational accusations against the Harvard law professor, claiming that he sexually abused her as a minor on at least six separate occasions, and describing each session in granular detail. However, in 2022, Giuffre’s lawyers drafted a statement confessing that she “may have made a mistake”.

Giuffre, for her part, claims that any memory-lapses or discrepancies in the public record are immaterial. “When you’re abused, you know your abuser. I might not have the dates or times right, and the places might not even be right, but I know their faces, and I know what they’ve done to me,” she writes.

Given the context of her repeated “mistakes”, other of Giuffre’s recollections may also warrant scepticism. In the early sections of the new memoir, she claims she was raped, enslaved, and trafficked by a large number of people — even before she met Jeffrey Epstein. First, she describes how she was raped by two teenage boys in the back of a car; charges against them were later dropped, owing to what police said was her “lack of credibility”. Court filings document another, separate claim that a different 17-year-old raped her; those charges were also dropped.

Later, she recounts how she was walking down the street one day when a white van pulled up beside her and the driver asked if she “needed a lift”. She got in, and was thereafter brutally raped, she says, with the muzzle of a gun stuck into her mouth. She was then repeatedly trafficked and raped by the owner of modelling agency in Miami; the owner of a horse farm in Ocala, Florida; and the owner of a nightclub in Fort Lauderdale. She also introduces for the first time that she was continuously raped by her father, as well as her father’s friend.

Once she met Epstein, she contends, she was raped and trafficked by so many men (and women) that the true total can hardly be quantified. This includes an unidentified “Prime Minister” whom she claims savagely raped and beat her. She does not name this person, or give any other identifying details because, she explains, she is afraid he will “hurt” her if she does so. This despite freely naming a huge assortment of other well-connected people over the years, implicating them in sex crimes.

https://unherd.com/2021/02/how-rush-limbaugh-shaped-american-conservatism/?ref=refinnar
Rounding out the list of men Giuffre claims she was abused by is her husband, Robert Giuffre, an Australian whom she lauds throughout the book as her “protector” and “savior”. But in early 2025, she began accusing her husband of abusing her as well, claiming he was jealous of her professional success as a trafficking-awareness activist. Robert countered that Virginia had become increasingly violent and unstable. Australian child-welfare authorities appear to have sided with him: they stripped custody of the couple’s children from Virginia.

No reasonable assessment of this combination of events could conclude that Giuffre is a reliable narrator, yet her claims have been mindlessly transmitted to a mass audience.

She was a self-confessed author of fiction, whose stories became ever-more elaborate as time went on — an evolution that earned her a great deal of money, not least through book advances. Since her death in April, Giuffre’s brother and half-brother have been engaged in a protracted court battle with her estranged husband over the lucrative estate. They insisted that her recent claims of abuse against the husband be added to the book in a foreword, according to The New York Times. Nowhere does the book disclose that these siblings are embroiled in an ongoing legal dispute with Robert Giuffre, with millions of dollars at stake.

The unwavering credulity with which this book has been received by journalists, editors, publishers and politicians is a testament to how the most basic standards of information-gathering and knowledge-production can be summarily discarded in service of a narrative that people want to believe. For those of us who prefer to remain anchored in some semblance of sanity and reality: Virginia Roberts Giuffre was undoubtedly a disturbed individual, who may well have suffered grave misfortunes. But that her tales could be unquestioningly broadcast throughout the international media — and be allowed to stoke unrelenting political turmoil, even with talk of a constitutional crisis — is irresponsible in the extreme.

---

Michael Tracey is a journalist in Jersey City, NJ. He can be found on Substack at Michael Tracey.
http://twitter.com/mtracey

 

[2fast2slow]

World Without Exploitation - End Human Trafficking

The movement to end human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

www.worldwithoutexploitation.org

 

[CaptRenault]

The government is back at work and members of Congress are back in Washington taking care of all the most important legislative business in these challenging times, such as ...the Epstein Files!

From the most recent ( several weeks ago) release of parts of the notorious Epstein Files, we learned that former Harvard president and Treasury secretary Larry Summers committed the unpardonable sin of exchanging friendly emails with Epstein after he had been convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute. Now Summers must serve the rest of his life in the Epstein Hall of Shame.

We were also treated to yet another song and dance routine from the Epstein Survivors Tour which is currently playing in Washington DC at the invitation of a few members of Congress.

Here is journalist Michael Tracey's review of the latest show.

Why are the "Epstein Survivors" refusing to answer questions?​

Michael Tracey
Nov 19, 2025





Haley Robson (podium) and Annie Farmer (grey jacket, glasses) — November 18, 2025

Yesterday at the Epstein Survivors Press Conference in front of the US Capitol, one of the organizers, Congressman Ro Khanna, announced a moratorium on journalistic inquiry. “We do not want people asking questions and cross-examining the survivors,” Khanna declared. “They’re here to tell their stories and they should be heard by the American people with respect.”

He clarified that journalists were still welcome to ask questions of the elected officials present, which was very thoughtful of him, but as to the “survivors” — they were off-limits. Why? Good question. It appeared the “survivors” who had taken the lead in coordinating joint “survivor” logistics were Haley Robson and Annie Farmer. At the press conference, where I had a front-row seat but was not called upon (and stupidly did not bluster out my question unprompted, which worked for Jim Acosta) the collective “survivor” itinerary seemed to be managed by Haley Robson. “Hey guys, we’re actually pressed for time,” she said. “So, we are not going to be taking questions going further [sic].”
I can’t be certain that the no-question policy was decreed because Robson spotted me, sitting in the very front, but I’m certain she did see me, having made prolonged eye contact, and she did not look especially thrilled at my presence. She likely remembered our prior interactions at the first Epstein Press Conference, on September 3, when I asked her about the lengthy factual record establishing that she herself had recruited — or “trafficked” — teenage females to Epstein’s house in Palm Beach, and made plenty of under-the-table cash from doing so, while seeming to quite enjoy her gig as local equivalent of the “Hollywood Madam,” according to audio recordings taken by police of her gleeful boasts. She was also an adult at the time, and a probable cause affidavit was issued for her arrest. (See my recent Compact Magazine article for more details.)
Was this the type of inconvenient background information “survivors” did not want to field any “cross-examining” questions about? Because I’d wager if the viewing public had been apprised of these minor details, their perception of the “survivor” PR presentation would be dramatically different.


After the press conference, I asked Ro Khanna to clarify the reasoning behind the no-question policy he tried to impose. “Why was it declared that the victims, or the survivors, could not be questioned or cross-examined today?” I asked him. “Aren’t they engaging in public political advocacy? Why not question or cross-examine them to test the veracity of their claims?”
“Well, I think that you can ask members of Congress questions. They came here, they’re sharing their stories,” Khanna said. “They didn’t want to be subject to cross-examination in this forum.”
“But they’re entering the political arena!” I said. Indeed, the adult grooming survivor Lisa Phillips had even declared that she was launching “the first national survivor-led political movement in America.” And they were calling for the passage of legislation! They were demanding elected officials take political action! Literally in front of the US Capitol! If that didn’t qualify as “entering the political arena,” what would?
“I’m in the political arena,” Khanna said.
“So are they!” I said. “They’re at the Capitol advocating for legislation!”

I further expressed my incredulity to the Congressman that Haley Robson was one of the “survivors” he decreed we were not permitted to “cross-examine,” or in other words, ask any proper journalistic questions. “Did you know that an arrest warrant was issued for [Haley Robson] as an adult in Florida in the 2000s,” I asked, “on the grounds that she had actually, quote, trafficked other girls — and told them to lie about their ages to Epstein? This is why, I’m sorry, there needs to be cross-examination of these people, especially if they’re going to be in the political arena.”
Khanna replied to me with a question of his own: “You would agree that when you have people who are victims of abuse or rape, that even in our court of law, you can’t bring out other parts of their character in trying to destroy their credibility on the stand? I mean, that’s not how we do things. You can build other evidence, I don’t think we should be badgering people who have been abused.”



Annie Farmer flanked by Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene

First of all, attempting to impeach accusers by “bringing out” evidence that might cast doubt on the veracity of their claims is exactly what defense attorneys in the United States do every single day, even in the case of accusers who claim to have been “abused or raped.” And the ability of defense attorneys to do this stems from a foundational tenet of the Sixth Amendment, which endows criminal suspects with the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” and as such, the right to himself “confront” those witnesses with any countervailing evidence that might prove exculpatory. So yes, contrary to Khanna’s weird assertion, this is most certainly “how we do things” in the US “court of law” — even if not always in the “court of public opinion,” as demonstrated by the woefully deficient fact-finding standards pervading the Epstein affair, especially in its manifestation as a political and cultural drama.

“How do we evaluate whether they’ve been credibly abused?” I asked Khanna. “Because Haley Robson admitted, effectively, to me and others — and in court documents — that she told other girls to lie about their ages and brought them to Epstein!”
“I don’t know every specific case,” Khanna said.

“Well, right,” I said. “But shouldn’t you investigate that stuff, if you’re going to appear alongside them?”
“What I do know is that there are enough survivors that did face massive abuse that are telling the truth about that,” Khanna said. “And that there are a lot of men who are implicated in that.”
“But which men?” I asked.

“Well that’s what we want to have [sic] the Epstein Files come out!” Khanna said.

Hold on a second. Politicians are running around asserting, as though it’s a proven factual certainty, that legions of prominent men are implicated in child sex-trafficking crimes, and have for too long escaped justice. What is their basis for making these confident assertions? Rumors? Hunches? Whispered insinuations from “survivors” and their profit-seeking lawyers? As opposed to any actual hard evidence, which they speculate could be forthcoming in yet-to-be-disclosed “Epstein Files”?
Sure, release the “files” — I’m all in favor. (Although the Khanna/Massie legislation that was just approved by the House and Senate yesterday won’t actually do that.) But aren’t you kind of egregiously putting “the cart before the horse” if you’re constantly rattling off these vague intimations of rampant criminal wrongdoing, without having any valid factual predicate for doing so? And aren’t you also undermining basic notions of fairness and due process, by prematurely deciding this criminal conduct has in fact occurred, without any tangible evidence to back it up?
Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have both started using the term “rape island” to refer to Epstein’s estate in the US Virgin Islands. OK… who was raped on the island? And who did the raping? THEY STILL WON’T SAY! No one will! Epstein’s island has been the object of extreme cultural, political, and legal fascination for at least 15 years now. You’re telling us you know for a fact that mass rapes were committed there — but you still can’t say who was raped, and by whom? And to find out, we all have to just patiently wait for the “Epstein Files”? Alright then. I look forward to the future “Epstein Files” vindicating this mass rape hypothesis (which you shouldn’t be asserting as fact in the first place, if it’s only a half-baked hypothesis.) We’ll see how that goes.
It’s incredible, as I speak to various people in DC, how comically devoid they are of basic knowledge about the Epstein case, even as they appoint themselves top legislative crusaders on the issue (Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene) or try to latch onto it for sundry political reasons (the entire Democratic congressional delegation).



House Dems hold a bizarre “vigil” — November 18, 2025

Case in point for this could be observed Tuesday evening at a “vigil” held by the Democratic Women’s Caucus in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. Dozens of House Dems stood in a solemn assemblage, clutching their electronic candle devices, as they were joined by several of the same “survivors” who spoke at that morning’s press conference. Taking charge at the “vigil” was once again Annie Farmer; she had quite a busy schedule, having also made another round of media appearances as Survivor Spokeswoman:



Annie Farmer — November 19, 2025


Annie Farmer — November 18, 2025

 

[CaptRenault]

(continued from above)

Does anyone ever stop and ask what criteria is even being used to designate someone a “survivor”? Of course not. The term itself is highly creepy. What are these ladies, Holocaust Survivors? Because if you took the time to actually examine the underlying details of the case, which is well beyond the paygrade of most politicians and journalists, Annie Farmer claims she is a survivor of… “hand-holding.” Seriously. And she was ruled by judicial edict to have undergone no “illegal sexual activity.”
I came across Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) after the moving vigil, which also doubled as a “celebration,” attendees said, when word came down that the Senate had swiftly passed the House version of the “Epstein Files” legislation. “Congressman, a quick question for you,” I said to Goldman. “One of the women who spoke tonight purported to be a Survivor. She actually testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. I think she alluded to it — Annie Farmer. In that trial, Judge Nathan instructed the jurors that she endured no illegal sexual activity, and therefore the jury could not use her testimony to convict Maxwell. So I’m just wondering on what grounds these people are being declared Survivors — if the only adjudicative process, judicially, found that she endured no illegal sexual activity.”
“I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not taking your word for it,” Goldman said. “But I’d like to see—”
“I’ll send you all the citations you’d like,” I offered.
“Please do, please do.”
“I’ll send you the full transcript.”
Goldman then walked away.
Here’s the full excerpt I was referencing from the Maxwell trial transcript. Which I’ll be more than happy to pass along to Rep. Goldman. On December 10, 2021, just as Annie Farmer was about to begin her testimony, Judge Alison Nathan said the following:

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

Judge Nathan went on to repeat this instruction at numerous points in the trial, including before jury deliberations. Which was highly notable, because this judge was otherwise absurdly partial to the prosecutors, as evidenced by her granting the government’s request that two of the four witnesses be allowed to testify under fake names, and another under her first name only. Annie Farmer was the lone witness who voluntarily opted to testify under her full real name, so kudos to her for that I guess. But let’s be clear about the significance of Judge Nathan’s instruction. In its original indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, the government had alleged that in or about 1996, Annie was victimized by activity that constituted “sexual abuse.” And this activity would be shown to make Maxwell guilty of offenses including “Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts” and “Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.”

But as the discovery process unfolded, it became clear that the government could not sustain its original contention that Annie Farmer had been subjected to “illegal sexual activity.” Even the prosecution, led by Maurene Comey, eventually conceded this was no longer viable. And it’s not difficult to see how this conclusion would’ve been arrived at, based on Annie’s cross-examination. She acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.
So… how exactly do we know that Annie Farmer is a “survivor”? We do know that she got unknown millions of dollars (tax-free!) We know her loony-tunes sister Maria, whom she displayed an old photo of herself with yesterday, is currently suing the federal government — and demanding $600 million from US taxpayers — on the ground that the FBI shamefully failed to take action on Maria’s purported claim that in 1996, at age 26, she was lured into a pedophilic conspiracy involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and the “Jewish mafia.” We know about the hand-holding “abuse.” We know that she’s a licensed “trauma” therapist and network TV regular. But how exactly do we know she’s a “survivor”?



Annie Farmer holds up a photo with her lunatic sister Maria

I really wanted to ask Annie how she reconciles Judge Nathan’s trial instruction with her much-trumpeted title of “survivor.”
So I very politely approached her at the “vigil” event. “When you testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, the judge ruled that you had endured—”
“I don’t want to talk to this man!” Annie shouted, cutting me off. “Can anyone help me with that?!?! I don’t want to talk to him.”
“Give her a little bit of space,” an unidentified person told me.
“I’m giving her space,” I said. “I’m just asking a question.”
“No, you’re not giving me space,” fumed a suddenly wrathful Annie. “You’ve never given me space, you’re not respectful. You were disrespectful the last time I was in DC.” (Read about the previous encounter here.)
At this point Annie scampered off. And the countless “survivor” PR handlers milling around, who wouldn’t identify themselves, were also getting increasingly agitated. “This man does not respect the word no, so he should be nowhere near survivors!” one unidentified woman raged at me. I guess stood accused of journalistic rape.
And I guess we can see why these “survivors” and their allied politicians did not want to permit any meddlesome “cross-examination.”

I’ll describe the absurd fracas in more detail in my next article, which will be paywalled, so consider upgrading to a paid subscription.

 

[snakejack]

I hope all the files will be released without modification.

It’s a very interesting story and there seems to be a lot of victims.

Epstein was a pedo and it’s a very good thing to assess his connections to the media, business and political world.

 

[CaptRenault]

Epstein was a pedo...

Epstein was not a pedophile, a term which means someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children (up to age 13). However, Epstein definitely was was an ephebophile*. He did act on his impulses which is wrong in most cases, but I think it's not as bad as being a pedophile. Some would say that' it's a distinction without a difference, but I think the difference is important just like the difference between murder and manslaughter is important and recognized in the law.

*An ephebophile is someone whose primary sexual interest is in mid-to-late adolescents, generally those aged 15 to 19, who are in later stages of physical development. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek word ephebos, meaning "adolescent," combined with -phile.

Key Distinctions
Ephebophilia is discussed as part of a spectrum of sexual orientations based on age preference and is distinct from other terms:

• Pedophilia: A sexual preference for prepubescent children.
• Hebephilia: A sexual preference for early adolescents, typically aged 11 to 14, who are in the early stages of puberty.
• Ephebophilia: A sexual preference for post-pubescent, mid-to-late adolescents.

Legal and Social Context

The legal and social aspects of ephebophilia are complicated by differing age of consent laws and social norms.

• Legal Consequences: Acting on ephebophilic interests can result in criminal charges, imprisonment, and sex offender registration, depending on the jurisdiction and the minor's age.
• Psychiatric Classification: Ephebophilia is not typically classified as a separate psychiatric disorder in major diagnostic manuals, but it is considered within the broader category of paraphilic interests.
• Controversy: The term is controversial, partly due to its use in discussions around age of consent.

Research into clerical sexual abuse has indicated distinctions between offenders classified as pedophiles and those classified as ephebophiles, particularly regarding victim age preference and offending patterns.

 

[CaptRenault]

What has happened to Larry Summers is a good example of why it is wrong to release the Epstein Files.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-courageous-stand-on-the-epstein-files-c8ba987e?st=iUFgNo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

An old definition of bipartisanship is when Democrats and Republicans come together to abandon principle. Case in point: Tuesday’s House vote of 427–1 to make the Justice Department release the “Epstein files.” That means unclassified material that couldn’t be used to charge anyone with a crime, but that now can be employed to smear reputations and embarrass opponents.

The Senate, supposedly the more reflective chamber, passed the measure without amendment and by unanimous consent. At least the House put its members on record. After President Trump changed his mind about the Epstein files and urged Republicans to go along for the ride, all did—except one.

That was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins. “What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today,” Mr. Higgins wrote Tuesday on social media. “It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America.” He’s right and deserves credit for standing alone.
Mr. Higgins continued: “This type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt.” Unfortunately, that has become the point. We don’t know what the files contain, but there’s probably plenty embarrassing. Republicans and Democrats are both hoping that the other party gets the worst of it.

The latest reputational casualty is the economist Larry Summers, who wrote Epstein for relationship advice. Now the left is enthusiastically settling scores with Mr. Summers, whom it never forgave for being right about the inflationary effects of President Biden’s policies, among other complaints.

Mr. Higgins points out that the House Oversight Committee has already informed the public by releasing more than 60,000 pages of documents from the Epstein case. Yet the demand to reveal some world-spanning conspiracy—a theory egged on initially by Mr. Trump’s circle—will never be satisfied. Whatever files get published, expect complaints about redactions and insinuations that the real evidence is still being covered up.
And what of the collateral damage to people who aren’t accused of any sort of chargeable crime? Give Mr. Higgins credit for pointing out that problem, when others decided the easier vote was a quiet yes.

 

[Womaniser]

What has happened to Larry Summers is a good example of why it is wrong to release the Epstein Files.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-courageous-stand-on-the-epstein-files-c8ba987e?st=iUFgNo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

An old definition of bipartisanship is when Democrats and Republicans come together to abandon principle. Case in point: Tuesday’s House vote of 427–1 to make the Justice Department release the “Epstein files.” That means unclassified material that couldn’t be used to charge anyone with a crime, but that now can be employed to smear reputations and embarrass opponents.

The Senate, supposedly the more reflective chamber, passed the measure without amendment and by unanimous consent. At least the House put its members on record. After President Trump changed his mind about the Epstein files and urged Republicans to go along for the ride, all did—except one.

That was Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins. “What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today,” Mr. Higgins wrote Tuesday on social media. “It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America.” He’s right and deserves credit for standing alone.
Mr. Higgins continued: “This type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt.” Unfortunately, that has become the point. We don’t know what the files contain, but there’s probably plenty embarrassing. Republicans and Democrats are both hoping that the other party gets the worst of it.

The latest reputational casualty is the economist Larry Summers, who wrote Epstein for relationship advice. Now the left is enthusiastically settling scores with Mr. Summers, whom it never forgave for being right about the inflationary effects of President Biden’s policies, among other complaints.

Mr. Higgins points out that the House Oversight Committee has already informed the public by releasing more than 60,000 pages of documents from the Epstein case. Yet the demand to reveal some world-spanning conspiracy—a theory egged on initially by Mr. Trump’s circle—will never be satisfied. Whatever files get published, expect complaints about redactions and insinuations that the real evidence is still being covered up.
And what of the collateral damage to people who aren’t accused of any sort of chargeable crime? Give Mr. Higgins credit for pointing out that problem, when others decided the easier vote was a quiet yes.

You seem to be a strong defender of the men that abused those young women and minise the effects those acts had on them.

 

[Flabert]

Epstein was not a pedophile, a term which means someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children (up to age 13). However, Epstein definitely was was an ephebophile*. He did act on his impulses which is wrong in most cases, but I think it's not as bad as being a pedophile. Some would say that' it's a distinction without a difference, but I think the difference is important just like the difference between murder and manslaughter is important and recognized in the law.

*An ephebophile is someone whose primary sexual interest is in mid-to-late adolescents, generally those aged 15 to 19, who are in later stages of physical development. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek word ephebos, meaning "adolescent," combined with -phile.

Key Distinctions
Ephebophilia is discussed as part of a spectrum of sexual orientations based on age preference and is distinct from other terms:

• Pedophilia: A sexual preference for prepubescent children.
• Hebephilia: A sexual preference for early adolescents, typically aged 11 to 14, who are in the early stages of puberty.
• Ephebophilia: A sexual preference for post-pubescent, mid-to-late adolescents.

Legal and Social Context

The legal and social aspects of ephebophilia are complicated by differing age of consent laws and social norms.

• Legal Consequences: Acting on ephebophilic interests can result in criminal charges, imprisonment, and sex offender registration, depending on the jurisdiction and the minor's age.
• Psychiatric Classification: Ephebophilia is not typically classified as a separate psychiatric disorder in major diagnostic manuals, but it is considered within the broader category of paraphilic interests.
• Controversy: The term is controversial, partly due to its use in discussions around age of consent.

Research into clerical sexual abuse has indicated distinctions between offenders classified as pedophiles and those classified as ephebophiles, particularly regarding victim age preference and offending patterns.

Funny on this topic!

 

[CaptRenault]

You seem to be a strong defender of the men that abused those young women and minise the effects those acts had on them.

What "men"? Jeffrey Epstein is the only man convicted of a crime involving sex with an underage girl (who was 17). What other men are you referring too who supposedly abused young women?

Virginia Giuffre, made many wild, unsubstantiated accusations against many prominent men and there is no credible evidence that any of her accusations are true.

I do not defend or endorse Epstein's lifestyle. It is both illegal and unethical to pursue any kind of sexual relationship with an underage woman (though many of Epstein's relationships were with 18+ women). On the other hand, I don't endorse the hysteria that surrounds his case and his relationships with other men who did not do anything more other than maintain a friendship with a dubious character. Moral panics are not good no matter the source.

As for the effects that Epstein had on the women with whom he had relationships-the biggest effect was they made hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars in payoffs from Epstein, his estate and organizations like JP Morgan (where he banked).

The consequences of the Epstein moral panic and its usefulness as a tool to attack political opponents resulted in this ridiculous charge by the dumbest member of Congress, Jasmine Crockett (I wish IQ tests were required of candidates for Congress ).

https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5615370-epstein-republican-donation-controversy/

Oopsies! Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) might not be ready for prime time.

Earlier this week, she fired back at Republicans for receiving money from Jeffrey Epstein, as part of her attempts to defend her friend, Virginia Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett, from charges that she enjoyed an overly cozy relationship with the disgraced financier and sexual predator. She attacked Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sarah Palin and Lee Zeldin — all Republican officials — for having contract with Jeffrey Epstein.

There’s just one problem: The Jeffrey Epstein who donated to Zeldin, Romney and other Republicans is not THAT Jeffrey Epstein — i.e., the one who died in prison under mysterious circumstances and has embroiled various associates in scandal, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Larry Summers. The Jeffrey Epstein whose political donations Crockett is highlighting is an entirely different person. Seriously, watch this.

Notice how she prefaced her remarks by describing the individual in question as “someone named Jeffrey Epstein.” That part is true: Doctor Jeffrey Epstein did give money to New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin. But that’s not the same Jeffrey Epstein. And we know this because Zeldin ran for governor in 2022, three years after the death of the other Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile.

Zeldin slammed Crockett, noting, “No freaking relation you genius!”

 

[CaptRenault]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/washington-goes-tabloid-f130fd11?st=gCBZAY&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

TMZ and the National Enquirer walk into a D.C. bar, fall in love and have a baby—a scandal-fest for the ages—which Congress delivers.

That’s what the Jeffrey Epstein files turned into this week, even if the full, salacious reality of the coming spectacle has yet to set in. What started as Democrats’ monomaniacal goal of tying Donald Trump to the deceased sex offender is set to become a bonfire of the political elite. It will be fueled by correspondence, hearsay and accusations of the type that only law enforcement can compel and collect, and that are as a result usually kept private absent formal legal proceedings. It will give new meaning to “gotcha”—and it’ll spare neither left nor right.

The hint that the stakes in this game were changing came this past weekend, when Mr. Trump—after months of resisting the files’ release—suddenly called for full disclosure. He openly broadcast his reason for the turnabout: “Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat’s problem, not the Republican’s problem! Ask Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Summers about Epstein, they know all about him.” It was a clear warning: If Democrats intended to weaponize the files, Republicans would weaponize harder.
This is what nuclear strategists call mutually assured destruction—which is meant to produce inaction. Congress, undeterred, rushed to vote for bipartisan immolation.

This week brought a tiny taste of that “transparency,” gleaned from some 60,000 pages of documents released as part of the House Oversight Committee’s Epstein investigation. A first missile—as per Trump prediction—landed squarely on Mr. Summers, former Democratic cabinet secretary, who it turns out was soliciting Epstein’s dating advice. The text exchanges contain nothing remotely illegal or related to Epstein’s crimes yet are cringeworthy enough as to have forced Mr. Summers to take leave from teaching duties at Harvard.
Missile two splatted on another Democrat, Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. Virgin Islands’ delegate to the House. Text messages from 2019 show her corresponding with Epstein during a congressional hearing about how to question an upcoming anti-Trump witness. Republicans initiated a censure vote, and Ms. Plaskett only narrowly avoided a formal reprimand and removal from the House Intelligence Committee. This follows documents showing journalist Michael Wolff—Trump antagonist, would-be slayer of the powerful—moonlighted as a PR adviser to the sex convict.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer reiterated this week that he’s eager to demand former President Bill Clinton come for a deposition to explain, among other things, his flights on the “Lolita Express.” The Comer team is also digging into documents showing that in 2013 a fundraising and PR firm pushing New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, now House minority leader, invited Epstein to a campaign fundraising dinner.

Democrats, so far unable to land one on Mr. Trump, have swiftly moved to exact other collateral damage. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden settled for a favorite Democratic punchball—corporations—releasing a memo claiming Epstein files show JPMorgan Chase failed to report “suspicious” Epstein financial transactions to the Treasury Department. Mr. Wyden is calling for a Justice Department investigation. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., Texas) spent a few minutes skimming Epstein docs so she could rush to the floor and accuse former Rep. Lee Zeldin (now Environmental Protection Agency administrator) of receiving Epstein money—only to be informed that the donor was a Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, an infelicitously named physician, whose contribution came after the other Epstein’s suicide.
And this circus is nothing. This week’s mudslinging comes courtesy of the initial House documents—from the Epstein estate, or those the Justice Department didn’t mind parting with. Former federal prosecutor Jim Trusty enumerated to me in a recent podcast the more sensitive material that may be to come. Recordings, videos, witness statements. In-depth notes from prosecutors debating (unproven) conspiracies, brainstorming (unbrought) charges of obstruction or collusion or false statements. Search warrants, and their results—from homes, emails, social media. Financial records.

An investigator’s job is to leave no stone unturned, no matter how distant from subject or crime, and Epstein dedicated his socialite life to amassing a heap of pebbles. The question won’t be who among the rich and powerful are named in these files—but who isn’t. Meanwhile, after two federal investigations, the reality is that 95% (99%? 100%?) of the coming material will prove circumstantial evidence, if not completely unrelated to Epstein’s criminal activities. It’ll be purely sensational, purely prurient, even as it coldly rips through reputations, jobs and legacies. It was once the job of “sleazy” tabloids to destroy lives with lurid gossip that titillated the public but lacked public interest in the high-minded sense.
Now Congress is doing it. A single member—Louisiana Republican Rep. Clay Higgins—had the foresight to imagine the wreckage and threat of new precedent. He observed the release upended “250 years of criminal justice procedure” and will “absolutely result in innocent people being hurt.” He was outvoted 427-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. Let the games begin—in which the odds are in no one’s favor.

 

[Wearethenight]

A pedophile is a pedophile, I don't give a care about the age blocks to describe different forms. Said person is still a disgusting individual, and said person is still a giant PEDOPHILE and no other word. Once we classify it into breakdowns with different ages it dehumanizes victims, just look at Somalia recently when a bunch of grown ass men cried that they could not marry teenage women and children anymore( girls, because you will never rarely hear about women upset they cannot marry boys.) someone lusting on teenage girls in the non legal age bracket is just as horrible as lusting on toddlers young children don't mitigate it.

 

[minutemenX]

A pedophile is a pedophile, I don't give a care about the age blocks to describe different forms. Said person is still a disgusting individual, and said person is still a giant PEDOPHILE and no other word. Once we classify it into breakdowns with different ages it dehumanizes victims, just look at Somalia recently when a bunch of grown ass men cried that they could not marry teenage women and children anymore( girls, because you will never rarely hear about women upset they cannot marry boys.) someone lusting on teenage girls in the non legal age bracket is just as horrible as lusting on toddlers young children don't mitigate it.

Let’s assume a hypothetical scenario that you have booked an agency girl that is listed as 19 y.o. but is just one month short of 18. According to the law you are a pedophile and a sex offender regardless you knew her real age or not. This is just to illustrate that formal application of the law and definitions often does not reflect the reality or corresponds to a common sense. Many girls at 17 are mature mentally and physically and are indistinguishable from say 21 years old, while some at 21 physically and mentally are on par with teenagers.

 

[Zero_Six]

I know that this is a forum for guys that pay women for sex, but do we really need to make this place more... Skeezy? Repulsive? Gross? Not sure which is the best term.

Pedos are bad. Defending pedos is bad. End of story. The second anyone starts saying "well, achtually... 17 isn't technically pedophilia", the conversation's over and HDs should be checked.

 

[terrybogard88]

Yeah totally true. One responsible man need to be able to set clear limits between what s good and what s bad. Should be able to state what is clearly unacceptable.

 

[minutemenX]

I know that this is a forum for guys that pay women for sex, but do we really need to make this place more... Skeezy? Repulsive? Gross? Not sure which is the best term.

Pedos are bad. Defending pedos is bad. End of story. The second anyone starts saying "well, achtually... 17 isn't technically pedophilia", the conversation's over and HDs should be checked.

Nobody is defending pedophiles, just the common sense. Please explain why the sex with 18 y.o, + 1 day is OK but the same 18 y.o. - 1 day is pedophilia.

 

[Zero_Six]

Nobody is defending pedophiles, just the common sense. Please explain why the sex with 18 y.o, + 1 day is OK but the same 18 y.o. - 1 day is pedophilia.

I'm 44 years old. I'm avoiding sex with anyone under 25. Even that's a bit lower than I'd like. The brain is still doing a lot of development up until that age and they lack life experience to be making such decisions. The chance that they're being trafficked/co-erced increases greatly.

I don't think sex with either of your hypothetical women/girls is a good thing. I've never understood the desire to sleep with the youngest woman legally possible. IDK your age though. If you're 25 or under, go for it. I'm guessing you're not 25 though.

The fact that you're looking for excuses/loopholes is concerning. What's the obsession with women that are as young as legally allowed?